Feb 22, 2016 - The Indices offer companies a metric to understand their scores in two ... channels or streaming services
INCLUSION or INVISIBILITY? Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment
LGB
T E C A R ETHNICITY
STACY L. SMITH, PhD, MARC CHOUEITI, KATHERINE PIEPER, PhD
GENDER
with assistance from ARIANA CASE and ARTUR TOFAN
MEDIA, DIVERSITY, & SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE Institute for Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA)
February 22, 2016 Dear Friends, Colleagues, Industry Employees, and Activists, We are proud to reveal the first Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment (CARD). This report is the result of over a year of data collection and analysis by the scholars and students at the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative (MDSC) at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. With over 100 research assistants working in our lab per year, we engage in and tackle issues surrounding inclusion in entertainment. As academics, we are set apart by our solution-oriented approach - we seek out previous research and theory to discover empirical answers to complex social problems. Ultimately, our goal is to accelerate the advancement of a media environment that represents the world we inhabit-- where the voices and visions of a diverse population are valued and visible. The financial support of the Institute for Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA) has allowed us to take a bold new step in pursuit of this goal. CARD: An Industry First For the past 10 years, we have quantified disturbing patterns around the lack of media representation concerning females and people of color in film. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged. We are often asked two questions following the release of our film studies: “but aren’t things better in television?” and “how are different companies performing?” This report is our public answer to both of these questions. And, for the first time, we have ranked companies on their level of inclusivity on screen and behind the camera. This is also the first time our research team has looked from CEO to every speaking character across film, television, and digital content. We believe that evaluating company output is a crucial aspect of pushing the conversation on media inclusion forward to create real change. Accountability and awareness can only take us so far, though. This report is not about shame or punishment. Rather, our aim is to help companies align their products with the values they hold. Our location on a University campus means we are no strangers to evaluation. It is a hallmark of the academy and one of our most important undertakings. The Inclusion Indices in this report are designed to serve as an evaluation tool for organizations. The Indices offer companies a metric to understand their scores in two specific ways. First, their performance relative to entertainment industry norms. Second, their performance relative to proportional representation in the U.S. population. Armed with information, media businesses can take steps to improve casting and hiring practices in the months and years to come. Shifting from invisibility to inclusion is no easy task. Companies have the opportunity to dismantle the structures and systems that have guided decades of exclusionary decision-making. Yet, these organizations do not face this task alone. We at the MDSC Initiative are available to develop and implement concrete solutions, monitor progress, and celebrate success with you. There is more to do, and we look forward to continuing the conversation. Our work to foster inclusion in storytelling will continue until the landscape of media characters and creators is as varied as the audience it serves. Onward, Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity (CARD) assesses inclusion on screen and behind the camera in fictional films, TV shows, and digital series distributed by 10 major media companies (21st Century Fox, CBS, Comcast NBC Universal, Sony, The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Viacom, Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix). Movies theatrically released in 2014 by the major studios or their art house divisions were included in the sample, provided they met a certain threshold of domestic box office performance (see Appendix A).¹ Prime-time first run scripted series as well as digital offerings airing from September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015 were sampled on broadcast, popular basic cable, premium channels or streaming services associated with the companies listed above (see Appendix B).² In total, the sample included 414 stories or 109 motion pictures and 305 broadcast, cable, and digital series. The major unit of analysis was the speaking or named character.³ Each speaking character was assessed for role, demographics, domesticity, and hypersexualization.⁴ Behind the camera, the gender of directors and writers of each film and every episode within a sampled series was evaluated.⁵ Race/ethnicity was assessed for directors of movies as well as those helming the season premiere episode of television/digital programs.⁶ Finally, the gender composition of CEOs, members of executive suites, boards of directors, and employees at the Executive Vice President or Senior Vice President level or above in film, TV, or streaming divisions was scrutinized.⁷ Below, we present an overview of our key findings within four major areas. For a detailed overview of the study, see the Executive Report online at the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative site.
GENDER Prevalence On Screen Across the 11,306 speaking characters evaluated, 66.5% were male and 33.5% were female. This calculated into a sample wide gender ratio of seeing 2 males to every 1 female on screen, which varied by media platform.⁸ Female characters fill only 28.7% of all speaking roles in film. For scripted series, less than 40% of all speaking characters were girls and women (broadcast=36.4%, cable=37.3%, streaming=38.1%). The percentage of films and TV/digital series with “balanced casts” was also assessed, or those stories with girls and women in 45-54.9% of all speaking roles. Only 18% of stories evaluated were gender balanced, with film (8%) the least likely to depict balance and cable the most likely (23%). Turning to leading characters by media platform, almost three-quarters of the leads, co leads or actors carrying an ensemble cast in film were male (73.5%) and 26.5% (n=41) were female. This is in stark contrast to TV/digital series. A full 42% of series regulars⁹ were girls/women.10 Streaming featured the most females in the principal cast (44.2%), followed by broadcast (41.6%) and cable (41%).11 Given the findings in Table 1, it is clear that females are still underrepresented on screen across the ecosystem of popular fictional content.
1
Table 1 Gender of Speaking Characters by Media Platform 40%
30
36.4
38.1
37.3
33.5
28.7
Total percentage of gender balanced casts
18%
20
10
0 RATIO
Total ratio of males to females FILM 2.5 to 1
BROADCAST
1.7 to 1
CABLE
STREAMING
TOTAL
1.7 to 1
1.6 to 1
2 to 1
% OF FEMALE SPEAKING CHARACTERS
2:1
Total number of speaking characters
11,306
Portrayal On Screen One of the most politicized areas in Hollywood pertains to casting women 40 years of age or older. Our findings show that 35% of all characters evaluated on this measure were in this age bracket. The vast majority of these parts go to males, however. Men fill 74.3% of these roles and women 25.7%. Film was less likely than broadcast or cable to show women 40 years of age or older.12 Streaming was the most likely, with females filling 33.1% of roles for middle age and elderly characters. Table 2 Characters 40 Years of Age and Older by Gender within Media Platform CHARACTERS 40+ YRS OF AGE
Film
Broadcast
Cable
Streaming
Total
% of males
78.6%
73.1%
70.6%
66.9%
74.3%
% of females
21.4%
26.9%
29.4%
33.1%
25.7%
The sexualization of characters on screen also was assessed (see Figure 1). Females were more likely than males to be shown in sexy attire (Females=34.3% vs. Males=7.6%), with some nudity (Females=33.4% vs. Males=10.8%) and physically attractive (Females=11.6% vs. Males=3.5%).13 Female sexualization differed by media platform (see Table 3). Female characters were more likely to be shown scantily clad and partially naked in broadcast, cable, and streaming content than female characters in films.14
2
Figure 1 Character Sexualization by Gender 50%
MALES FEMALES
40
34.3
33.4
30 20 10
11.6
10.8
7.6
3.5
0 SEXY CLOTHING
NUDITY
ATTRACTIVENESS
Table 3 Female Character Sexualization by Media Platform SEXUALIZATION MEASURES
Film
Broadcast
Cable
Streaming
% shown in sexually revealing clothing
28.6%
36.4%
39.6%
34.7%
% shown w/partial or full nudity
27.5%
35.3%
39.6%
32.5%
% referenced as physically attractive
13.9%
10.2%
10.8%
9.6%
These sexualization findings are troubling for two reasons. Theory suggests and research supports that exposure to objectifying content may contribute to and/or reinforce negative effects such as self objectification, body shame, and/or appearance anxiety among some female viewers.15 The results also suggest that with a higher prevalence of females on screen a higher incidence of sexualization follows.
Behind the Camera Gender composition was examined in two key behind the camera positions in film and scripted series: director and writer. A total of 4,284 directors were assessed for gender across all episodes of 305 scripted series and 109 motion pictures. A full 84.8% of directors were male (n=3,632) and 15.2% were female (n=652). This translates into a gender ratio of 5.6 males to every one female behind the camera in popular media. Director gender and media platform were related.16 As shown in Table 4, only 3.4% of all film directors were female (n=4). Among TV and digital series, broadcast had the highest percentage of directors (17.1%) and streaming the lowest (11.8%).
3
Table 4 Director Gender by Media Platform
100%
TOTAL
96.6
80
88.2
84.9
82.9
15.2%
60 40 17.1
20 0 RATIO
15.1
11.8
3.4
FILM
BROADCAST
CABLE
STREAMING
28.5 to 1
4.8 to 1
5.6 to 1
7.5 to 1
% OF MALE DIRECTORS
Total ratio of male to female directors:
5.6 to 1
Total number of directors:
% FEMALE DIRECTORS
4,284
A similar analysis was conducted for writer gender.17 Across 6,421 writers, a full 71.1% were male and 28.9% were female. This means that for every one female screenwriter there were 2.5 male screenwriters. Writer gender varied by media platform (see Table 5).18 When compared to streaming (25.2%), females were the least likely to have screenwriting credits in film (10.8%) and the most likely in broadcast (31.6%). Table 5 Writer Gender by Media Platform
100%
TOTAL 89.2
80
74.8
71.5
68.4
28.9%
60 40 20 0 RATIO
31.6
25.2
Total ratio of male to female writers:
10.8
FILM
BROADCAST
CABLE
STREAMING
8.3 to 1
2.2 to 1
2.5 to 1
3 to 1
% OF MALE WRITERS
4
28.5
% FEMALE WRITERS
2.5 to 1
Total number of writers:
6,421
In addition to writing and directing, the gender of series creators was assessed. A total of 487 creators were credited. Almost a quarter of these creators were women (22.6%) and 77.4% were men. Show creator gender did not vary by platform.19 Of show creators, 22% were female on the broadcast networks, 22.3% on cable channels, and 25% on streaming series. Table 6 Show Creator Gender by Media Platform SHOW CREATOR GENDER
Broadcast
Cable
Streaming
Total
% of males
78%
77.7%
75%
77.4%
% of females
22%
22.3%
25%
22.6%
Gender Ratio
3.5 to 1
3.5 to 1
3 to 1
3.4 to 1
Total Number
186
229
72
487
Note: This analysis only applies to television and digital series. Creator or developed by credit determined “show creator.” Creators of source material predating the development of the television or digital series were not included (e.g., characters created for a movie, novels turned into scripted shows).
Is having a female behind the camera associated with on screen patterns of representation in film, TV, and digital series? As shown in Figure 2, the relationship between director gender and character gender was significant.20 Stories with a female director attached had 5.4% more girls/women on screen than those stories without female direction (38.5% vs. 33.1%). For writers21 and creators,22 the relationship was more pronounced (10.7% and 12.6% increase, respectively).
Figure 2 Percentage of Female Characters On Screen by Gender of Content Creator
33.5
NO BTS FEMALE
33.1
CREATORS DIRECTORS WRITERS
30.4
46.1
BTS These findings suggest that one solution to 38.5 FEMALE on screen diversity is to hire more women 41.1 behind the camera. It may also be the case, however, that executives feel more comfort0 10 20 30 40 50% able hiring women directors and screenwriters when the story pulls female. This latter explanation is problematic and limits the frequency and types of open directing/writing jobs available to women.
Summing up, the prevalence and portrayal of women in media has been a topic of much interest to the press and the public recently. Females are underrepresented both on screen and in key behind the camera roles. Including women behind the camera may be one antidote to the problem, though more research is needed on the effects of hiring women directors and writers for on screen depictions. 5
Executive Suite For the first time, the MDSC Initiative examined the gender of executives at media companies (n=1,558).23 This analysis catalogued the leadership profile at the parent companies and corporate divisions of film studios, television networks, and digital content organizations in our sample. Table 7 Top Corporate Executives by Gender and Position POSITION
Males
Females
Board of Directors
81%
19%
C-Suite
79%
21%
Executive Management Team (if applicable)
81%
19%
Note: Three companies had executive management teams that oversaw their media divisions: Comcast NBC Universal, Sony and Amazon. In these cases, the C-suite designation includes the parent company and an additional line was created for individuals with governance over the media divisions of these corporations.
As shown in Table 7, women represent roughly 20% of corporate boards, chief executives, and executive management teams.24 Corporate boards consist of elected or appointed officials, while chief executives oversee operations at the corporate level and have responsibility for all aspects of a media company, not solely film or television. In some cases, an intermediate team of executives (i.e., Amazon, Comcast NBC Universal, Sony) had responsibility for the media divisions of interest. Those were classified as the executive management team. At the pinnacle of some of the largest and most important media companies in the world, women are still roughly onefifth of the decision-makers. Females represent 39.1% of executives across the media divisions of companies evaluated. As shown in Table 8, roughly one-quarter or less of the top executives on all three platforms are female.25 In television, near gender parity has been reached at the EVP level. Looking at the lower leadership tier of all media companies, a sizeable contingent of women are working in SVP-equivalent positions. Thus, as power increases, the participation or representation of women in executive ranks decreases. Table 8 Female Corporate Executives by Media Platform POSITION
Film
TV
Streaming
Total
% of Female Top Executives
25.6%
21.5%
20%
23.7%
% of Female EVPs or equivalent
29%
45.3%
18.7%
35.9%
% of Female SVPs or equivalent
40.4%
50.4%
51.4%
46.7%
Total
33.1%
45.1%
32.9%
39.1%
Note: Top executives consisted of individuals at the head of movie studios or film groups (Chairs, Presidents). When titles at the EVP or SVP level co-occurred with “Chief Officer” titles, they were held to the EVP/SVP level.
6
Examining the executive ranks of major film and television companies reveals that women are not represented in positions of senior leadership in equal numbers to their male counterparts. Where women are well-represented is at the SVP level and in EVP positions in television. These findings demonstrate that while the highest level of the corporate ladder remains somewhat closed to women, at lower levels females are waiting to ascend.
RACE/ETHNICITY Prevalence On Screen We also assessed characters’ racial/ethnic identity. Of those speaking or named characters with enough cues to ascertain race/ethnicity (n=10,444), 71.7% were White, 12.2% Black, 5.8% Hispanic/Latino, 5.1% Asian, 2.3% Middle Eastern and 3.1% Other. Thus, 28.3% of all speaking characters were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, which is below (-9.6%) the proportion in the U.S. population (37.9%).26 The percentage of underrepresented speaking characters did not meaningfully vary by media platform (see Table 9).27 The number of shows featuring “racial/ethnic balance” was evaluated. If a show featured any underrepresented characters within 10% of the U.S. Census statistic, it was considered balanced. Only 22 stories depicted racial/ ethnic balance on the broadcast networks (19%), 18 on cable (13%), 1 on streaming (2%), and 8 in film (7%). Clearly, most stories fail to reflect or match the demographic composition of the U.S. Table 9 Underrepresented Speaking Characters, Series Regulars & Leads by Media Platform
7
26.7
109
138 CABLE
19
116
29.2
2
TOTAL
12
BROADCAST
FILM
13
29.7
29.4
51 STREAMING
28.3
414 % OF UR SPEAKING CHARACTERS % OF SHOWS WITH UR BALANCED CAST TOTAL # OF STORIES EVALUATED
The level of invisibility in storytelling was assessed via the number of shows and films that did not depict any speaking characters from two specific racial groups: Black/African American and Asian. Two trends are immediately apparent in Table 10. First, streaming stories were more exclusionary of actors from both groups than the other media platforms. Second, at least half or more of all cinematic, television, or streaming stories fail to portray one speaking or named Asian or Asian American on screen. Undoubtedly, there is a vast underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority groups that still plagues entertainment content. 7
Table 10 Number of Shows Without Any Black or Asian Speaking Characters by Media Platform
FILM: Out of 109 stories
BROADCAST: Out of 116 stories
20 (18%) have no Black characters
19 (16%)
55 (50%) have no Asian characters
59 (51%)
CABLE: Out of 138 stories
STREAMING: Out of 51 stories
32 (23%)
19 (37%) Have no Black speaking characters Have no Asian speaking characters
70 (51%)
32 (63%)
Pivoting to leading characters in film, 21.8% were coded as underrepresented, which is 16.1% below U.S. Census. The distribution of characters was gendered, with 65.6% of underrepresented characters male and 34.4% female. Focusing only on leads, the vast majority were Black (65.6%). Only 12.5% of underrepresented leads were Latino and 6.3% were Asian. Roughly a sixth (15.6%) of all underrepresented leads were from “other” races or ethnicities. Looking to television and digital content, only 26.6% of series regulars were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (see Table 11). Underrepresented series regulars were slightly more likely to occur in broadcast (27.6%) and streaming stories (29.6%) than in cable stories (24.6%).28 Table 11 Underrepresented Main Characters by Media Platform
27.6
29.6
116
138
51
BROADCAST
CABLE
STREAMING
% OF UR SERIES REGULARS 8
24.6
TOTAL # OF STORIES EVALUATED
Portrayal On Screen In terms of demographics, the gender distribution within different racial/ethnic groups was assessed. As shown in Table 12, Latinas and females from “other” racial/ethnic groups tended to be shown more frequently than White or Black females.29 Table 12 Character Gender within Racial/Ethnic Groups CHARACTER GENDER
White
Latino
Black
Asian
Other
Male
65.7%
62.1%
66.1%
63.4%
62.3%
Female
34.3%
37.9%
33.9%
36.6%
37.7%
Focusing on age, only 25.7% of all middle age and elderly characters were female across the sample. Of these, over three-quarters were White (77.8%). Only 20.9% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. 1.3% of female characters did not have a discernible race/ethnicity. Looking at the raw numbers, only 203 underrepresented females 40 and over were coded across the entire sample. This is less than 2% of all speaking characters. Surely, these findings reveal that underrepresented females are largely invisible from 40 years of age forward in film, television, and digital series. Related to sexualization, we only report on female characters given the pronounced gender differences observed earlier in the report. For simplicity purposes we are only going to focus on the highs and lows in this analysis. Female characters from “other” racial/ethnic groups were more likely to be shown in sexualized attire, with exposed skin, and referenced as attractive than were Black or Asian female characters (see Table 13 for complete distribution by race/ethnicity).30 Table 13 Female Character Sexualization by Race/Ethnicity SEXUALIZATION MEASURES
White
Latina
Black
Asian
Other
% in sexualized attire
34.8%
39.5%
29.5%
28.9%
41.6%
% with some nudity
34.2%
35.5%
28.6%
27.7%
39.7%
% referenced attractive
12.6%
11.4%
7.9%
7.7%
15.3%
Overall, the landscape of media content is still largely whitewashed. Relative to the U.S. population, the industry is underperforming on racial/ethnic diversity of leads (film), series regulars (TV/digital), and all speaking characters. The number of shows missing two racial groups entirely is particularly problematic. The hashtag #OscarsSoWhite should be changed to #HollywoodSoWhite, as our findings show that an epidemic of invisibility runs throughout popular storytelling.
9
Behind the Camera The race/ethnicity of every film director as well as those helming the first episode of every live action television show and scripted series was assessed. Out of the 407 directors evaluated (see Table 14), 87% were White and 13% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Only two of the 53 underrepresented directors in film and television/digital series were Black women: Amma Asante (Belle) and Ava DuVernay (Selma). Table 14 Underrepresented Directors by Media Platform UR DIRECTOR STATUS
Film
Broadcast
Cable
Streaming
% of White Directors
87.3%
90.4%
83.2%
88.6%
% of Underrepresented Directors
12.7%
9.6%
16.8%
11.4%
Ratio
6.9 to 1
9.4 to 1
4.9 to 1
7.8 to 1
Note: This analysis only applies to the first episode of live action series (n=280) and all films (n=109; live action or animated) in the sample.
Underrepresented directors do not significantly vary by media platform. Cable shows (16.8% of directors) tended to attach an underrepresented director to their season premiere episodes more than broadcast (9.6% of directors) or streaming (11.4% of directors) shows. Film held an intermediate position across media, with 12.7% of all directors across 109 motion pictures from underrepresented groups. All percentages under index relative to the U.S. population norm of 37.9%. Figure 3 Underrepresented Characters by Director Race/Ethnicity
43.7
% OF UNDERREPRESENTED CHARACTERS
26.2
0
10 UR DIRECTOR
20
30
40
NOT UR DIRECTOR
50%
The relationship between the presence/absence of an underrepresented director and underrepresented characters on screen was evaluated.31 As shown in Figure 3, the percentage of on screen underrepresented characters increases 17.5% when an underrepresented director is at the helm of a scripted episode or film. Only 26.2% of characters were underrepresented when directors were White whereas 43.7% were underrepresented when directors were from racial/ethnic minority groups.
As with gender, the race/ethnicity of the director seems to matter. However, the direction of influence is not entirely clear. Having an underrepresented director may have facilitated more underrepresented characters being cast on screen in film, television, and digital series. It may also be the case that underrepresented directors were more likely to be hired on to projects with more diversity on screen. Again, this latter explanation is problematic and suggests that hiring practices are affected by who is on screen rather than the talent of the storyteller.
10
LGBT Prevalence On Screen Of the 11,194 characters that could be evaluated for apparent sexuality, a total of 224 were coded as Lesbian (n=49), Gay (n=158), or Bisexual (n=17). Put differently, only 2% of all speaking characters across the 414 movies, television shows, and digital series evaluated were coded LGB. This point statistic is below the 3.5% of the U.S. population that identifies as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual, as reported by the Williams Institute at UCLA.32 A separate measure assessed whether characters were transgender. Only seven speaking or named characters identified as transgender sample wide, which calculates to
